AuthorTopic: The future of medium format (Read 51914 times)

It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.

Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.

I was at the New York product launch in 2002, met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.

In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.

Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.

I was at the New York product launch in 2002, met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.

In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

Michael

I was shown a Fuji 645 prototype or sample before the Hasselblad H was ever announced. I had been shooting with the GX680 and was rather popular with Fuji having got their camera on national television twice.I was also the first to buy a gx680 in Italy. From what they told me Hasselblad was having a terrible time making the transition to more electronic cameras and approached Fuji about marketing the new 645 under the Hasselblad brand and through the vast Hasselblad pro network. I think that a clear give away is the format. Fuji had no square format cameras. Hasselblad had always made 6x6 cameras.I remember Fuji asking me if I would miss the square format.. My answer was "Do you know any square magazines?"

Some have said that some body assembly was done in Sweeden just so that they said it was made in Sweeden. Personally I think some assembly/manufacturing was done in Sweeden more for Hasselblad's loyalty to it's workers.The lack of transparency regarding manufacturing was more about the marketing crowd...

Fuji had even developed it's own digital back that ended up never going onto the 645 due to Hasselblad buying Imacon, but if you look at the Fuji digital back that was sold for the Fuji gx680 it clearlylooks like a 645 back modified to fit on the GX680.

Fuji recently decided to not sell anymore of it's new high end cameras under other brands and wanted to keep them under their own brand to drive sales and reputation of their consumer cameras.Fuji decided that the x1-pro would only be branded Fuji and would not be the next xpan. This resulted in Hasselblad's scramble to find an alternative and we all know how that went....The Lunar ... a pimped out Sony Nex.

Who knows what Fuji's next moves will be. They have made it known that they want to be the No 3 camera maker. They are a huge corporation with deep pockets.I think that they will be very cautious of going into MF Digital and they have shown that they can achieve very high quality with smaller sensors of their own design.

Just imagine the image quality of the X1-pro scaled up to 24x36 or maybe 33x44mm. Their own camera, their own sensors and their own lenses.

You also seem to have some idea that you cannot analyze an image that you didn't shoot your self. Can you perhaps explain why?

Yes. I think you have to have some experience with the gear used for testing. Only if you know what the gear is actually capable of you can judge about whether or not a respective capture is representative for the gear at all.

For instance in the D800e-IQ180-comparision (T. Ashley's shots you've referred to in your arcticle: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2 ) the focus plane of the 2 captures is very different. This makes a comparision almost impossible especially when it comes to comparing noise. Of course you can look at OOF areas and say the IQ180 shows more noise. It does, that's not the point. But it also shows a lot more details where the D800e looks a bit washed out and dull when pushed in post. The latter is only apparent when you look at image ares that are correctly focussed… and I have only found one spot in the images where a comparision could make sense. The D800e vs IQ180 comparision has been made for personal purposes (on behalf of T. Ashley) and that's perfectly okay. But I think it's absolutely inappropriate to draw generalizing conclusions from such a (sloppy) comparision.

Another example (from your article) is the comparision made by Tim Parkin. In general it's a great comparision and I assume care has been taken to make the comparision as solid as possible. I do use a P45 which is also in the list of the cameras/films/backs compared. So I know pretty good how captures from a P45 can look like (with good lenses as well as with mediocore lenses). There's also a Sony A900 in the list which I also know a little. The A900 seems to outperform the P45 in terms of resolution. Now, I've made exactly this comparision (A900 & P45 & also P21+) myself 3 years or so ago and the result was very different (the A900 had a hard time to show the same amount of details than the P21+ … at low ISO). So I can tell you either T. Parkin's copy of the P45 had a faulty or miscalibrated sensor, an extremely bad lens, a bad color profile (the greens show almost no differentiation… which is in fact a weak point of the P45 but the samples in that comparision look really horrible) or he screwed up the post processing (looks like a lot of Luminance NR) or whatever.Who cares. I mean … it's just a comparision made by someone. But, again, it's inappropriate to draw generalized conclusions from it (well, at least as far as the P45 is concerned… but since I have noted post processing … who knows how he did the processing of the IQ180 files…??).

So you've made a whole essay titled "MF Digital, myths or facts?" and it is based on 2 or 3 shootings made by someone else. That's amazing. Really amazing!Don't get me wrong … it's fine when you have fun in analyzing technical things. But the "facts" your findings are based on are, well… questionable. IMHO.My point is: if you would use MFD you also would have a better idea whether or not certain samples published somewhere are meaningful. So, yes, I think it's important that "testers" know the stuff they are testing (at least to some degree).

some folks need live view, mostly those who want to use MFD on technical cameras

I do use a tech cam and although I don't have Live View I get sharp images. For wide shots the lens is set to infinity. As long as the infinity setting of the lens is adjusted to exactly match the sensor plane (which is easy to achive) infinity is "save ground". You can also use a laser distometer and for instance Alpa's HPF focus rings (I don't use them and still get good results using a laser disto and some additional markings on the focus ring of my lenses). Close distances are relatively easy to focus on the groundglass. And finally a 11'' Macbook Air provides a decent screen to check focussing while not being much larger than an iPad... so it's also usable in the field for tethered shooting. I have not yet used an IQ or Credo back but from what I have heard the LCDs are good enough to reliably check focus. Of course only after the capture ...Now, all that is a bit cumbersome and inconvenient. You can just as well say it's a PITA. This is why live view would be a great and very helpful feature - no question about it! But MFD is not unusable today only because LV is not there yet. Focussing is doable ...

It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.

Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.

I was at the New York product launch in 2002, met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.

In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

Michael

Michael runs this forum and was at the launch....

Maybe you can explain why I have never heard the same story from various Hasselblad staff when ever I asked about the manufacturing of H system even years ago.

Nick it seems you can't get your story straight either:

Quote

Nicktnz wrote:This is wrong.The camera is made in Sweden as are the shutters. The lens elements are made by Fuji and assembled in Sweden. The backs aremade in Denmark.Nick-T

Quote

Nicktnz wrote:Hassie bodies are made in Gothenburg Sweden. Hasselblad lenses are made byFujinon to Hasselblad designs with Swedish made shutter assemblies. Hasselbladchoose Fujinon to partner with in making the HC and HCD lenses because they hadthe best fab facilities on offer.

Quote

Nicktnz wrote:I have visited the Danes often and worked closely with them so I havea fair idea of what I'm talking about. hasselblad went to Fuji for glass because at the time Zeiss did not have a compellingoffering in terms of technology (clean rooms). Fuji do have the rights to manufacture the "Fuji 645" under licence but thatdoes not mean they make Hasselblads, I stand by my statements.

I have to jump in and ad a plus to Thomas post as well. I find it pretty peculiar that people keep using others test results constantly in there own posts to make a point. My belief as I test myself is if your not willing to buy, rent , borrow the gear you want to talk about than your really doing a injustice not to mention infringing on someone's copyrights. These type of posts bring no legitimacy for anyone since we have no idea if tests done are correct to begin with. Only the tester knows what he did and on top of that most of these tests are not done properly. Just a reminder you are infringing on someone's copyright reposting there images. Legally you are liable for posting them. It's something we fight very hard as working Pros is our copyright. It's something you should be aware of regardless if no one pushes the issue the fact is they can.

Just to make a few issues clear. I don't infringe on the copyright of the pictures as I have obtained permission from each photographer. I would gladly have used more images, but those are not easily find.

Another point you miss entirely that I never state that MF is not superior to DSLRs in some areas, what I discuss is pretty much the theoretical background.

Another point you miss entirely in the article is that image by Tim Ashley is only used to check out dynamic range or really the dark noise. It is not used at all for comparing sharpness. The area I have choosen was intended to show shadow noise. Tim was very specific about where focus was in the images, and the place I looked at was different from that area, but noise is not dependent on focus and probably more visible in out of focus details then parts showing more texture. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2

Regarding color rendition I conclude that chapter with: "I have no first hand experience with MF, what I write is a drill down based on reading and looking at files available on the net. Still I have seen a couple of direct comparisons of Digital MF and DSLRs and got the impression that Digital MF camera had better color. This thread on LuLa forums is a good example." On the other hand I refer to Tim Parkins article and also use some of his images. Tim seems to dislike the P45, it is possible that the copy he had is substandard. What I found interesting in Tim's article is that he claims color rendition is different. I don't really agree with Tim's observation on Metameric Rendition Index, but I didn't feel necessary to comment on that. Tim may know a couple things I don't.

If you have issues with my posting about testing why are you discussing it on the thread called "The future of MF"? Why don't you discuss on the original thread.

Getting back original thread and live view. It is quite obvious that many posters regard live view important. If you look at the Alpa FPE it's not really intended to be used with ground glass. Also I probably would be a bit nervous switching back and forth between a viewfinder and a digital back, specially in a cold morning with numb fingers.

Yes. I think you have to have some experience with the gear used for testing. Only if you know what the gear is actually capable of you can judge about whether or not a respective capture is representative for the gear at all.

For instance in the D800e-IQ180-comparision (T. Ashley's shots you've referred to in your arcticle: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2 ) the focus plane of the 2 captures is very different. This makes a comparision almost impossible especially when it comes to comparing noise. Of course you can look at OOF areas and say the IQ180 shows more noise. It does, that's not the point. But it also shows a lot more details where the D800e looks a bit washed out and dull when pushed in post. The latter is only apparent when you look at image ares that are correctly focussed… and I have only found one spot in the images where a comparision could make sense. The D800e vs IQ180 comparision has been made for personal purposes (on behalf of T. Ashley) and that's perfectly okay. But I think it's absolutely inappropriate to draw generalizing conclusions from such a (sloppy) comparision.

Another example (from your article) is the comparision made by Tim Parkin. In general it's a great comparision and I assume care has been taken to make the comparision as solid as possible. I do use a P45 which is also in the list of the cameras/films/backs compared. So I know pretty good how captures from a P45 can look like (with good lenses as well as with mediocore lenses). There's also a Sony A900 in the list which I also know a little. The A900 seems to outperform the P45 in terms of resolution. Now, I've made exactly this comparision (A900 & P45 & also P21+) myself 3 years or so ago and the result was very different (the A900 had a hard time to show the same amount of details than the P21+ … at low ISO). So I can tell you either T. Parkin's copy of the P45 had a faulty or miscalibrated sensor, an extremely bad lens, a bad color profile (the greens show almost no differentiation… which is in fact a weak point of the P45 but the samples in that comparision look really horrible) or he screwed up the post processing (looks like a lot of Luminance NR) or whatever.Who cares. I mean … it's just a comparision made by someone. But, again, it's inappropriate to draw generalized conclusions from it (well, at least as far as the P45 is concerned… but since I have noted post processing … who knows how he did the processing of the IQ180 files…??).

So you've made a whole essay titled "MF Digital, myths or facts?" and it is based on 2 or 3 shootings made by someone else. That's amazing. Really amazing!Don't get me wrong … it's fine when you have fun in analyzing technical things. But the "facts" your findings are based on are, well… questionable. IMHO.My point is: if you would use MFD you also would have a better idea whether or not certain samples published somewhere are meaningful. So, yes, I think it's important that "testers" know the stuff they are testing (at least to some degree).

__________________

I do use a tech cam and although I don't have Live View I get sharp images. For wide shots the lens is set to infinity. As long as the infinity setting of the lens is adjusted to exactly match the sensor plane (which is easy to achive) infinity is "save ground". You can also use a laser distometer and for instance Alpa's HPF focus rings (I don't use them and still get good results using a laser disto and some additional markings on the focus ring of my lenses). Close distances are relatively easy to focus on the groundglass. And finally a 11'' Macbook Air provides a decent screen to check focussing while not being much larger than an iPad... so it's also usable in the field for tethered shooting. I have not yet used an IQ or Credo back but from what I have heard the LCDs are good enough to reliably check focus. Of course only after the capture ...Now, all that is a bit cumbersome and inconvenient. You can just as well say it's a PITA. This is why live view would be a great and very helpful feature - no question about it! But MFD is not unusable today only because LV is not there yet. Focussing is doable ...

Regarding the copyright issue I just want to point out that all images used in the article Tho_mas is discussing have been used with the kind and explicit permisson of the authors. Where images are linked, those images were also linked with the proper permisson of the authors. The authors of those images have read and to some extent contributed to the images.

I used a few additional images from Imaging Resource and Alex Koloskov without explicit permission but those images were only used to generate data (MTF graphs color rendering measurements).

I would also add, that the images themselves care very little about the photographer. A shot of a color checker is a shot of a color checker weather made by myself or at Imaging Resource.

I have to jump in and ad a plus to Thomas post as well. I find it pretty peculiar that people keep using others test results constantly in there own posts to make a point. My belief as I test myself is if your not willing to buy, rent , borrow the gear you want to talk about than your really doing a injustice not to mention infringing on someone's copyrights. These type of posts bring no legitimacy for anyone since we have no idea if tests done are correct to begin with. Only the tester knows what he did and on top of that most of these tests are not done properly. Just a reminder you are infringing on someone's copyright reposting there images. Legally you are liable for posting them. It's something we fight very hard as working Pros is our copyright. It's something you should be aware of regardless if no one pushes the issue the fact is they can.

If you look at the Alpa FPE it's not really intended to be used with ground glass.

who cares? This is one of the reasons why I would favour the original H-Cam over the Apla FPS anytime. A groundglass is not only a "focus-aid". It's also a way to compose an image (as opposed to catch an acurrately focused capture).

who cares? This is one of the reasons why I would favour the original H-Cam over the Apla FPS anytime. A groundglass is not only a "focus-aid". It's also a way to compose an image (as opposed to catch an acurrately focused capture).

Erik appreciate your reply and honestly was just making a point on copyright and not accusing you of anything. Others do a fine job of that. LOL

More my point was a lot of these tests have a lot of variables in them that you really have to watch how carefully things are done. Testing is very hard when your dealing with apples and oranges. I have done these tests and a lot of them I simply did not post because its just not worth my time or energy a lot of the times plus people use them in negative ways to either system. I have compared all three Phase backs against a D800 and D800e. I know what I need to know between them and end of day all I care about so I do ignore many of these comparisons just simply too much going on about it. I really have no agenda either way. I like both systems and when the time is right I will jump back in to MF. Regardless of all the millions of posts between them I mostly ignore a lot of them simply because we pick features, functions, ergos and image quality for each individual needs. My needs are very different than others and as it should be. Anyway testing is great for a lot folks to see specific details that one wants to know but the results are always going to face certain variables that are hard to overcome correctly especially between systems. Again my point carefully analyze what's being done that's my only point. Honestly if you want to get into MF or not but want to know than get with a dealer test it yourself and make a call for yourself. DT and CI would be happy to rent you a system. If you need help there let me know be glad to help.

I know. Live View, however, will not replace a groundglass. When Stefan will remove the sliding back and groundglass only because future DBs provide Live View ... well, then I'll neither buy a H-Cam nor an Alpa FPS ;-)

another one?! Who would have thought... Erik, you can add me to that list - again (proclamation): Live View would be really useful.But I also love optical viewfinders (for several, totally personal/subjectiv reasons). Photography is not only about getting something in focus or to catch an accidential moment. First and foremost photography is a creative, artstic process. Therefore we all have different "needs"...